Ireland flags crypto as major threat in anti-money laundering push

Ireland has identified crypto assets as a “very significant” money laundering and terrorism financing risk and has committed to introducing industry standards governing crypto-related sources of funds by the second half of 2027.

According to Ireland’s Department of Finance, the policy forms part of an implementation plan released alongside the country’s latest National Risk Assessment, the first government review in seven years to examine risks linked to digital assets.

The assessment said the growth of crypto-related fraud, money laundering prosecutions, and financial crime involving digital assets has increased pressure on authorities to strengthen oversight.

The report stated that crypto assets present challenges beyond criminal financing. Irish officials warned that digital assets can facilitate sanctions evasion, complicate tax enforcement efforts, and create opportunities for corruption involving officials responsible for supervising the sector. 

At the same time, the assessment pointed to weaknesses stemming from inconsistent international regulation and activity occurring in less-regulated segments such as decentralized finance.

Although Ireland is part of the European Union, the report noted that the country still lacks some of the regulatory and legislative measures adopted in other major jurisdictions to address risks tied to the crypto industry.

New compliance standards are scheduled before 2027

Under the implementation plan, Irish authorities intend to establish industry standards covering the acceptance of crypto-related activities as a source of funds by the latter half of 2027. The proposal forms part of a wider effort to strengthen anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing controls across the financial sector.

Data from the Central Bank of Ireland cited in the assessment showed that roughly 10% of the country’s population had invested in crypto assets as of December, highlighting the growing role of digital assets in the domestic financial system.

Recent enforcement actions have already brought compliance shortcomings into focus. In November 2025, the Central Bank of Ireland fined Coinbase Europe Limited approximately $24 million for Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism breaches. The regulator said the company failed to promptly report deficiencies in its transaction monitoring system.

Separately, the assessment highlighted concerns that crypto is being used more frequently in payments connected to corruption. Political donations involving digital assets, however, have already been restricted in Ireland. In 2022, policymakers proposed a ban preventing Irish political parties from accepting cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, Ether, and privacy-focused tokens.

Regulators increase focus on crypto crime controls

Ireland’s review arrives as regulators in several jurisdictions tighten supervision of crypto businesses through anti-money-laundering frameworks.

Earlier this year, Zimbabwe placed crypto firms under the supervision of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe through Statutory Instrument 99 of 2026. The rules require businesses involved in buying, selling, transferring, or safeguarding digital assets to register as Virtual Asset Service Providers and comply with financial crime controls.

Industry compliance standards have also become stricter, according to a May report preview from Chainalysis. The blockchain analytics firm found that nearly 47% of organizations entering the market in 2026 adopted alerting standards that would have ranked among the top 10% most stringent settings in 2020.

Chainalysis reported that monitoring of direct exposure to illicit funds has become relatively consistent across regions. The company said the remaining challenge lies in tracking indirect exposure, where funds move through intermediary wallets before reaching a platform. 

According to Chainalysis, alert thresholds for indirect exposure linked to ransomware, scams, darknet markets, fraud operations, and sanctioned jurisdictions are often set 10 to 20 times higher than thresholds applied to direct exposure, leaving potential gaps that criminals can exploit.